A Letter To Rowan Williams(and John Sentamu)

This is a copy of a letter I sent to Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, regarding his homophobic policies(see my last post.) I also sent a copy of the same letter(minus the bit about Sharia Law) to the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu. It probably won't do any good, but I sometimes have to let my feelings known about things. Rather than type it up I just scanned it in(minus my address, name et al of course.)

Homos Are Evil: We Get The Point Already!

Shari'ah Law = Just dandy, but two men having a civil partnership ceremony in a church = EVIL!!! At least that's according to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. The Guardian (18/06/08) has the archbishop having a whine about queers, the main hobby of the religious. Here's a quote from him "Those clergy that disagree with the teaching [saying homos are evil!] are at liberty to seek to persuade others why they believe, in the light of scripture, tradition and reason, that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it." (from the Guardian above).
This quote is just a load of bollocks, to put it lightly. Firstly, why should THEY have to convince YOU? Why don't YOU convince THEM, if your arguments against homosexuality are so watertight?(somehow I doubt it.) Secondly, love how "scripture" and "tradition" are above "reason" in that quote. What does scripture have to do with gays anyway? Where is the words "homosexuals/homosexuality" et al used in the Bible(and yes I mean the original Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, not the English translations.) Besides, as was pointed out on the Guardian letters page, if it says that homosexuals are bad in Leviticus, it also says they should be put to death, so you better get the stones out, Mr. Williams. And thirdly, being as your religion is based on FAITH, they can say whatever the hell they like. You can say that "God hates queers" and them gays can say he loves them; niether position has any evidence to back it up so it's all just inane speculation anyway. Why any gay person would want to be associated with this piece of shit religion I have no idea.

The last point I'd like to make is that THIS IS THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. This is moderate faith. And it's still bigoted as, well, bigotry.

Hypocrisy Meters Explode All Across Britain

Birmingham, England - There has recently been a hypocrisy meter crisis across Britain, the repercussions still being felt in the most severely affected areas. "It was terrible." one affected woman said earlier today, "It was about 11.50 on Tuesday night and suddenly, that highly prized hypocrisy meter I'd bought just exploded." In a production plant in Aldershot, two workers were killed in a mass explosion of the latest shipment of meters.
The crisis has been linked to a showing on the British Channel 4 of the film Jesus Camp. One commentator said "My meter could take it when I read about Eliot Spitzer, but it just couldn't handle Haggard."

Why Jude 7 Ain't About Queers

Jude 7 is one of the verses in the Bible used by fundamentalists to condemn gays(less commonly, than, say Leviticus 18.22 but still used). However I aim to demonstrate that this interpretation fails by the fundamentalist's own logic - because it leads to a Biblical contradiction.

Jude 7 in the KJV: "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (emphasis added)

The highlighted bit seems to be the key to most fundamentalists' use of this verse. However, to interpret it to mean "they lusted after other men" directly contradicts with Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.39: "All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

So in other words, the men were going after strange flesh meaning gay sex(according to the fundamentalist interpretation of Jude) by going after flesh the same as theirs(according to Paul). As you can see, this makes no sense at all. It is in fact contradictory. Thus Jude 7 cannot be a reference to homosexuality, because as we all know, there are no contradictions in the Bible. ;)
A more consistent explanation would be that Jude is condemning the potential bestiality of the men of Sodom because this is consistent with Paul: angels could have different flesh to men, hence, "strange flesh".

NB. I read somewhere and corroborated that the Greek word translated "strange" in Jude is actually "(h)eteros" - yep, that sounds like a reference to gay action ;).

Britain and Gay Executions In Iran...

On Thursday, The Independent newspaper ran a story about a gay Iranian teenager, Medhi Kazemi, whom Britain refused to grant asylum to despite the fact that if he is sent home he will probably be executed. (link.) Obviously, if this is the case, it is terrible that Britain would allow such injustice.
But I want to talk about Britain's policy on these matters. According to the Independent again:
"The Home Office's own guidance issued to immigration officers concedes that Iran executes homosexual men but, unaccountably, rejects the claim that there is a systematic repression of gay men and lesbians." (see link above) and "In turning down Ms Emambakhsh [another similar case] and Mr Kazemi's asylum applications, the Home Office has said that, provided Iranians are discreet about their homosexuality, they will not be persecuted." (link)
That's absolutely awful, in my opinion. Translation: "Why can't you homos get back in the closet where you belong?!" I mean, are the Home Office incapable of understanding that homosexual people need love, intimacy and sex the same as everybody else or something? Very few people are able to remain completely celibate. This dictum has been proven again and again for gay people both throughout history and in the modern world, in the Middle East and in The West. Obviously, if gay people did not have this need, no-one would have gay sex in Iran in the first place due to the harsh punishments for it. And the social stigma and threat to their careers was not enough to deter neither Ted Haggard, nor Larry Craig, nor Bob Allen. I'm pretty sure forcing us to suppress this harmless part of our being counts as persecution in itself. Love and intimacy are supposed to be one of the most wonderful things that human beings can feel, to deny that to parts of the population for no reason other than disgust or religious dogma is a cruel punishment.

I think something needs to be done about these kinds of things that happen in other countries. We cannot just ignore it and say it's not our business because it's not our country. In a way, it is xenophobic to be isolationist - "you were born X in country Y, deal with your lot!". I appreciate that this is going to be difficult to achieve, but we have no other choice but to try. Unfortunatly, I have very few ideas about how we can make this work. I would rather avoid going to war for obvious reasons as well as the fact that forcing democracy on a country that doesn't appear to want it is going to end in either a religious fundamentalist being elected or somebody overthrowing the Constitution(more on this later in a post coming soon). "Liberating" Iraq didn't work and neither will this. Dialogue is always worth trying, but I cannot see them listening to us, especially as they are Islamic radicals who believe non-Muslims are the enemies of God. The only ideas I have are to impose sanctions on the countr(ies) responsible, or refusing to trade with them. Obviously, these will have their own implications that will need considering. Of course, even if we did get Iran and other countries like it to change their laws, we'd still have a big problem with people carrying out their own justice(particularly regarding anything like "honour" killings) and the government turing a blind eye to it because they agree with what they are doing. I fear it may be hopeless. Maybe someone else has some good ideas as to how to deal with this?

Stranger At The Gate

I didn't write this, it's a book review by my mother(from a Christian perspective.) I decided to post it up because 1) I love the book that this is a review of; 2) it makes some valid points.

Book Review by Kay Allen
‘Stranger at the Gate’ by Mel White. ISBN: 0-671-88407-7
Can be obtained from http://www.soulforce.org/

‘Who is my neighbour?’

An expert in the law once asked Jesus this question. The reason he asked it was that he had understood what Jesus meant him to do, and he knew the law alright, but he was hoping that there might be some limit on the kind of person he was being asked to love.

‘Who is my neighbour?’

The question is equally relevant to us today, and we might still have the same reservations as the original enquirer: What if my neighbour is not easy to love? What if I don’t understand my neighbour? What if my neighbour is not like me?

It is not so long ago that black people in America were denied their civil rights; they were considered inferior to their white neighbours until Martin Luther King introduced his special blend of peaceful activism, and the injustice of that situation was rectified. Before that, black people were not allowed to worship in churches with their white brothers and sisters. The religious right, spearheaded by Jerry Falwell, were firm in their white supremacy stance.
However, Falwell was challenged by the black man who shone his shoes every day, who remarked that he so enjoyed the religious broadcasts that the preacher put out, that he would love to be able to hear them in person for himself. At that point Falwell was convicted of his error and black people were allowed to join his church.

From today’s enlightened standpoint, it seems incredible that we could have considered anyone to be inferior to us and fair game for prejudice because of their skin colour! How illogical and ridiculous it would all seem, if not for the fact that hate crimes and prejudice destroyed the lives of so many innocent black people. There are still incidences of racism today, but enlightened people would not allow or condone it, and laws are in place to ensure that those who will not change their attitudes can at least be made to change their behaviour.

Falwell and the religious right thus learnt to accept black people, who had been set apart from others by the colour of their skin, something which they had been born with, could not change, and which did not make them any less valuable than white people. To quote Christopher Hitchens in ‘God is Not Great’: ‘One of the great emancipating results of genomics is to show that all ‘racial’ and colour differences are recent, superficial and misleading.’

Unfortunately, this new-found tolerance did not extend to another group of people similarly disadvantaged within society. These people were homosexual. Rather than promote tolerance, the religious right in America did all they could to promote intolerance and hatred of homosexuals, and even used this stance to generate funds for their campaigns.
Convinced that homosexuality was a sin, based on six biblical verses ambiguously translated, Falwell and his ilk whipped up a fever of anti-gay feeling, and as a result hate crimes and suicide claimed the lives of many gay people. ‘Hate the sin and love the sinner’ became a cop out via which prejudice could be fostered without question. Hatred of the sin without hatred of the sinner is in fact not possible in the case of homosexuality because the inborn sexual orientation of a person is integral to (whilst not comprising the whole) of their personality. You would thus be rejecting part of who they are by rejecting their sexuality. Like skin colour, sexual orientation is encoded into who we are.

Who is my neighbour?

In essence this is the question posed by Mel White’s book, ‘Stranger at the Gate’. As Christians we are asked to show love to other people without discrimination. In his story of the Good Samaritan, in his meeting with the woman at the well, in his healing of lepers, Jesus himself issued a challenge to his followers in word and action to demonstrate the love of God to others – all others.

Martin Luther King taught the world that people of other races are our neighbours. Mel White’s book should teach us that gays and lesbians can also be our brothers and sisters in Christ. In this respect, for many, it will be a challenging read.

Brought up in 1950s California by strict Evangelical parents and grandparents, Mel was encouraged from an early age to witness to his school friends. Winning others to Christ was for him a personal responsibility, and he was terrified that he was responsible for the eternal souls of those who failed to convert to Christianity. Thus much of his early life was spent in guilt and fear; only in retrospect was he able to realise that as long as he had ‘sown the seed’ the spiritual growth of another was the work of God.

However, Mel had another compelling reason to witness so enthusiastically. Not only did he feel burdened towards others, he was desperately trying to earn his own salvation. Early in his life, Mel realised that he was different, but at the time he did not have a word for what he felt. In fact, he came slowly to the realisation that he was homosexual. His autobiography is the story of Mel’s struggle to come to terms with his sexuality, and the torture he endured as he tried to overcome what he had been taught was a sin incompatible with the Christian faith. If only he believed strongly enough and fought hard enough he would be healed.

It is testament to Mel’s faith in God that although occasionally he felt that God had abandoned him, and more than once he contemplated suicide, Mel never considered an alternative route – to abandon Christianity as incompatible with his sexual orientation.

Who is my neighbour?

Like other Christian Fundamentalists, Mel was initially convinced that homosexuality was a sin – a case of sexual preference rather than sexual orientation. In fact, in America, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder until 1973 – the implication being that it was something unnatural that could be ‘cured’.

Consider this – would you subject the neighbour whom you are encouraged to love to electric shock therapy, isolation therapy and other types of aversion therapy? All this and more Mel willingly submitted to in a valiant effort to subdue his natural inclinations. Would Mel, a kind and gentle man, have wanted anyone else to endure such torture? No, but he subjected himself to these ‘cures’ in the vain hope that he could change. He allowed himself to be mistreated in ways that he would never have inflicted on his neighbour because he could not love himself.

Ironically, Mel was employed during this time by Jerry Falwell and others of the religious right as a ‘ghost writer’ and film maker. Even Liberal Christians have always believed that homosexuality is wrong, and this general acceptance fostered a climate in which the religious right could promote intolerance as there was an underlying agreement with their beliefs, if not with the various reparative therapies they espoused. The political atmosphere at the time was not conducive to a challenge to the homophobic obsessions of the religious right.

Even today, extremist groups like Fred Phelps’s Westboro Baptists base most of their preaching around their hatred of homosexuals, to the point where they stand with placards proclaiming God’s hatred of America at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. Their twisted reasoning is that God hates homosexuality and thus punishes Americans by killing their troops, since there is a certain amount of tolerance to homosexuality in the United States.

Who is my neighbour?

I wonder if we would have stood shoulder to shoulder with Dr Martin Luther King in his fight for Equal Rights for black people? It was when speaking with Dr King that Mel experienced a revelation that Christianity was not only about saving souls, but about making life better for those marginalised here and now. Later Mel would attribute his desire to be an activist to that meeting. Throughout the book he writes of meetings with various people who wrought changes in his life, and I think we can all relate to such meetings in our own lives.

I wonder if we have the courage to stand shoulder to shoulder with gays and lesbians today in order to demonstrate a belief that they too should have equal rights? I believe that God gave us a brain and that we should use it to examine our own thoughts and feelings in order to challenge prejudice and intolerance within ourselves. Do we have that courage? And once we have challenged ourselves, can we go on and challenge others?

Who is my neighbour?

Jesus gave us an example of speaking out for the oppressed in the parable of the unjust judge (sometimes called the parable of the persistent widow). A widow has been wronged and appeals to an uncaring judge for justice in the matter.

Let us be clear here that although the parable is often used to encourage persistence in prayer, the judge does not represent God. We are told that he fears not God or man and does not really seem to care about right and wrong at all. It is not because of any sense of pity or justice that he gives in to the widow’s request; rather he is just fed up with her! If the judge is meant to reflect God in any way it is as a direct contrast. The judge is a symbol of corrupt power.

However, in the widow, who represents the poor and marginalised, we see a reflection of God. She is the one who peacefully (if irritatingly!) persists in her protest against the injustice done to her. She is both a symbol of God’s justice and the ‘voice of the poor’. The power of what is right eventually wins through. The widow, though apparently helpless, obtains the justice that is the will of God through her constant plea. Her victory is perhaps a minor one, but if we all stood up for what we believed to be right, intolerance and injustice would eventually cease. We are not told that the judge changes his opinion in any away on the matter brought to him, and indeed we cannot change attitudes in every circumstance – that is why we have laws pertaining to tolerance and equality.

In this story the Bible itself has given us a perfect model for Martin Luther King’s peaceful protest and resistance to injustice. For the above explanation I am indebted to Reg Bott, Curate of Saint Faith and St Lawrence Church, Harborne, who spoke on this theme on 21st October 2007.

The book of James also tells us that faith without works is useless.

Who is my neighbour?

It was many years before Mel White was able to accept his homosexuality. He was in fact married with children, trying desperately to overcome his sexual orientation. However, it was with great regret towards his wife and family that he came to realise that he could not experience true partnership with a woman. Eventually came the realisation that his sexuality, far from being a disorder, could be viewed as a God-given source of joy.

Part of the change in Mel’s vision occurred because scientific explanations of homosexuality now indicate that rather than being a wayward choice that can be tamed by prayer or will, homosexuality is possibly genetic and certainly intrinsic to the nature of a person. Mel postulates that just as our understanding of creation has been informed by Darwin’s theory of evolution, so our ideas about homosexuality should be informed and advanced by psychological and scientific knowledge.

In addition, his study in translation of the six Biblical verses generally cited as forbidding homosexuality, led Mel to conclude that other interpretations are possible, given the cultural context of their origin.

Final acceptance of self, and the conviction that he could not live a lie, meant that Mel saw no alternative but to ‘come out’ and live his life honestly and productively as a gay Christian. Integrity was not without cost, as the work Mel was engaged in with the religious right came to an end, as did many of his Christian friendships. Although his marriage also ended, his friendship with his wife Lyla, an extraordinarily understanding partner and friend, did not come to a close. His children also were able to accept and love their father unreservedly.

Thankfully, Mel was able to continue his lifelong call to Christian ministry within a gay and lesbian church which provided him with new employment and livelihood. Thinking back to the meeting with Martin Luther King, Mel also felt called to become a peaceful activist for the equal rights cause.

Mel White really interprets his own story so well that there is not much more I can do than to urge you to read his book and allow yourself to be challenged prayerfully by it.
Who is my neighbour?

Your neighbour is the stranger at the gate. How will you respond?

Kay Allen

The Homosexual Agenda

Our favourite factmine, Conservapedia(which really is very liberal...with its bullshit ;)) identifies 6 things proponents of the "Homosexual Agenda" supposedly do.


http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda

1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."


Yep, I'm gay. Did you get that the first time?! I'm GAY. Maybe I should put it in pretty colours. I am a L-E-S-B-I-A-N. And i talk about how gay I am all the time. Me and my queer friends just sit there talking about our latest motorbikes and how many sports matches we've watched recently.

Seriously though, I think I've had at least one blog post where I haven't mentioned my sexual orientation. I can't be that obsessed with it can I?

2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."

Perhaps that's because a lot of gays are victims, idiot.

3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."


"Homosexual protectors"?

4. "Make gays look good."


I don't want to make all gays unquestionably look good. Some gays are assholes. But some gays are also great people, and most features of gays don't have anything to do with their "gayness" anyway.

5. "Make the victimizers look bad."


I don't need to make them look bad, they do a good enough job of that by themselves. Though admittedly I do join in with mockery and fact correction. They actually refer to themselves as "victimisers". Love it.

6. "Get funds from corporate America."

Well, that would be nice.

Here's our evil, Satanic aims...

"censoring biblical condemnations of homosexuality"

Actually, no. You're wrong. Say what you want about gays. I don't want to censor you.

"establishing affirmative action for homosexuals"

If it is nesarcary, fine. If it's not, not.

"expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation"

Well, yes. But you can disagree with homosexuality without wanting to kill "them thar queers".

"ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality"

Again, yeah. Why shouldn't gays serve in the military? It's a waste of time and money attempting to discharge gay soldiers, for a start. I bet Conservapedia is all up its own ass about "supporting the troops" but obviously this means support our heterosexual troops.

"promote homosexuality in schools"

Define "promote homosexuality".

"in places like Massachusetts and California — where the gay lobby is the strongest — it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys — "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual." Or — "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex "have cooties.""

Pre-school and 7/8 year olds aren't really the same thing, now are they?

"You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex."

Oh no! some gay kid might actually accept themselves as normal now! What a tragedy![/sarcasm]

"promote science that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene"

Most gay activists, if they did comment on this, would say something like "Well, we don't know for sure what causes homosexuality, but the evidence suggests that thee may be some biological factors involved." It's the fundies who bring up the dumbass argument of "they can change, thus they don't need rights". Gay activists don't argue from the premise that "it's genetic, thus it's good" because we're(on the whole) not as stupid as fundies.

"force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle "

What the hell does this mean? If it means "get rid of discrimination in the workplace" than I totally agree.

"Suing an online dating website for discrimination"

Look, that might be an aside, but it's not part of the main agenda. Get with the program.

"getting more rights in prison"

If you mean "getting the same rights as straights" here, then yeah.

"Ex-Gay" Fundamentalist Comic

Just discovered The "Truth" For Youth comics that promote Biblical Fundamentalism. One of these comics was a dumb "ex-gay" promoting one, where some guy claims to have "left homosexuality"(whatever that means) 30 years ago. It has strawman gays, as per usual. When I saw this, I just couldn't resist making a parody of it. (Probably any of them are asking to be mocked--they look about as smart(and as realistic) as Jack T. Chick's comics.)
My advice is read the original first. The plot in my version's kinda similar, I just messed with the wording to make it more realistic ;). Click the links to open them bigger. All original images copyright of course.

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/queerfreethinker/xgaycomicpanel1parody.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/queerfreethinker/exgayparodypanel2.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/queerfreethinker/exgaycomicpanel3.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/queerfreethinker/EXGAYPARODY4.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/queerfreethinker/exgaycomic5.jpg

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/queerfreethinker/xgaycomicafaparody.jpg

Enjoy! PS. apologies that the text size is so shitty. Blame the original writers.

Hate Speech Is Not The Same As Hate Violence

For some strange reason, fundamentalist Christians often seem to think that they are one and the same thing. Yep, the fundies are still whinging about this bill known as HR1592 or the Matthew Shepard Act/Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act 2007, which passed the House early in May.

OneNewsNow has this article about the act. Steve Cohen(D-Tennessee) rightly pointed out that the bill has nothing to do with speech and that the Religious Right was distorting the bill by claiming it affects their right to free speech. The fundies got on their soapbox by saying that:

"But Congressman Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) says the bill does indeed threaten the First Amendment rights of pastors and churches.
"He [Cohen] said it was a lie -- when, in fact, if you read the legislation it doesn't go any further than what we have presently in place as far as actual murders and mayhem and assaults; but it moves into the thought police side in saying you can't talk about beliefs and values that you've long held. The fact of the matter is that if you do, we may indeed be able to pull you in as an incentive to hate violence. That's a chilling effect," says Walberg."

This claim from the Right is just plain false. The bill covers violence, not speech. Anyone who actually reads the text of the bill would find that damn obvious. Besides, the Bill cannot overturn the First Amendment anyway, and if it genuinely did conflict with the first amendment, it wouldn't be allowed to be made law.

Although hate speech can often help to lead to hate violence by creating an intolerant environment, it is quite clearly not the same thing, and people shouldn't be punished for their views and should have the right to express those views. Hate violence, on the other hand is quite clearly unacceptable.

These fundamentalists should learn that you can object to someone's opinion without wanting to beat them up.

World Net Daily and "Quitting" Homosexuality

Yesterday, I discovered this World Net Daily article when somebody on a message board I sometimes use brought the topic up.
If you don't want your eyes to get polluted by the WND website, the article basically talks about a man, Mike Glatze, who claims that he has left the gay lifestyle and is no longer a homosexual. I felt obliged to tell the people in this debate that the evidence suggests you can't change your sexual oreintation, though some of them seemed to think testimony was more reliable than scientific evidence(not that surprising, sadly).

Here's a few comments on the article:

"In his column, Glatze doesn't mince words, calling homosexual sex purely "lust-based," meaning it can never fully satisfy.
"It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one," he writes. "Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason.""

Firstly, how does he know all homosexual sex is lust based? Just because HIS gay sex was, does not mean everyone else's it. "Normal", well depends on how you want to define it.

"Just before leaving, not fully realizing what he was doing, he wrote on his office computer his thoughts, ending with the declaration: "Homosexuality is death, and I choose life.""

Cos Gays hve teh AIDS, lolz!!!111!
Seriously, I don't understand. Homosexuality is death? Last time I checked, I still have a pulse.

"Glatze said he thought opponents of homosexual activism were "mean and crazy, and they wanted to hurt me.""

THAT makes more sense, judging on a lot of rabid fundies.

It almost seems from the article that he had some underlying issues, like he's been raised in a religious manner and couldn't quite get over it.

Mike, after you get over that initial euphoria of God supposedly healing you only to realise you're still gay, don't make the mistake other people have made. Don't continue to pretend. It's not worth it.

Only 71 People Are Going To Heaven!

[Note: This was originally written after the airing in Britain of Louis Theroux' documentary The Most Hated Family In America. It was on my original (now deleted) blog, but I decided to give it a re-airing here.]

There was a programme on this week in Britain about Fred Phelps' infamous cult, the Westboro Baptist Church. I, of course, watched this programme. In it, Louis Theroux spent three weeks with them in order to attempt to find out why they would do the things that they are infamous for.
The Rev. Fred himself was rude, nasty and insulting, surprisingly enough, as well as appearing to have the "don't-question-me" cult attitude. He seemed to be in the background but in control, sitting in his room(stroking a white cat--that's a given) letting everyone else get their hands dirty holding his hateful little protest signs. While he thinks about anal sex. Because seriously, there isn't a gay man who's ever lived that thinks about anal sex as much as these people.
Not to mention his batshit insane conspiracy theories. Because I'm sure that a so-called loving God goes around letting terrorists fly planes into stuff. And yes, I'm sure 9/11 was punishment to a nation that allows homosexuals--we'll just ignore the fact that there were sodomy laws in 14 states at the time, shall we? And I'm also dead sure that only Phelps himself has the right interpretation---as they all seem to believe--and the other thousands of churches are all just plain wrong. Because they say so.
I personally don't understand why we are supposed to worship this petty sex obsessed God, maybe it's just me but I don't see the appeal in it.
Shirley Phelps was the one who was actually doing the protesting malarkey. And she was absolutely crazy. Batshit insane. She and her little cult following--mostly children--stood at the side of the road with their signs. To a certain extent, they just look sad and pathetic. I mean, only three or so adults protesting?
Of course the fact that they want to go around protesting people's funerals is pretty sick, offensive, and disrespectful.
The main problem I have with their little church is what they are doing to their children, though. I mean, children that could have been no older than ten holding hate signs that they don't even understand what they mean: to me that is wrong. These poor children are going to grow up with a very skewed perception of reality: they are going to feel like everybody hates them. And because the outside world is so hostile, the only place they are going to belong is the Westboro cult. Which will only mean that the world hates them more...and the cycle goes on.
You could see the result of this in their teenage daughters and the woman in her early 20's: in general they seemed like nice people, but the force of this hateful religious indoctrination was so strong that they couldn't see that maybe they were wrong...I think they struggled aswell to see the true hatefulness of many of the things that their church preaches. Their minds have been severly damaged by this, and I personally think it is a very sad thing. I hope that there is some way that the other children can escape before they end up like this.

So, What Exactly ARE Family Values?

What are "family values"? Well, it depends on who you'd like to listen to. The Religious Right likes to claim to have the monopoly on "family values". According to James C. Dobson and others like him, you're not a "proper" family if you don't conform to his ideas. And let's not forget that everybody who isn't heterosexual, or is divorced or a single parent, or supports the legality of stuff like gay marriage, they are "anti-family". This is nothing more than a cheap strawman. Nobody is "anti-family". Everyone accepts that the "one-man-one-woman-with-kids-married-for-life" formula is just fine and dandy if that's what you want to do with your life. We just appreciate that that formula is not suitable for everyone. So what exactly are my "family values"? My family values are understanding people's needs. My family values, in short, are love, tolerance and monogamy.
So don't let anyone ever tell you (if you are indeed a liberal on matters like this) that you are "anti-family". having a broader definition of something does not make you against it.